Sally Clark cleared

[MandyD]

Just saw on the News that Sally Clark, the solicitor jailed for murder of her two sons, has been cleared at her second appeal and released from jail. The court said that vital evidence was definitely witheld at the original trial. I remember that the prosecution stated that the odds of cot death occuring twice in the same family were 73 million to one. Since then research has proved that it more likely around 400 to 1.

I know I shouldn't laugh on here but that Peters and Lee comment....

On the subject of vaccines, I have read that less than 10% of vaccine reactions are reported - therefore there may be an awful lot of various reactions that we just don't know about.

As far as Sally Clark goes, well I am very cautious about the whole thing. I can't help thinking "what if?" and no matter what she's always going to have that hanging over her head - which is awful if she is innocent. But lets not forget that she has been released because the evidence didn't stand up, NOT because she is innocent. What she's been through is terrible, but if 6% of SIDS cases are murder then what do you do? In any circumstances you are always going to have innocent people who are wrongly convicted, as well as criminals getting off. The whole 'justice' system needs an overhaul, but there are always going to be mistakes made.

Apparently, having one SID actually does make you slightly more likely to have another. And it is a crazy system that would say to a mother having lost her first baby, make sure your second doesn't die, because if it does, you're going to prison.

Statistics are so cleverly manipulated - if a mother does lose her baby, she is not less likely to lose another - in the same way that if you win the lottery you are not less likely to win it again. Given that the first thing has happened, it is out of the statistical argument. Just multiplying 8000 by 8000 is an utterly unsound statistical argument.

exactly musica. Every time you roll a dice (die? never sounds right) you have a 1 in 6 chance of getting a 6. Just because you've already had a 6 doesn't mean you won't get it next time.

re Christopher and the lung problem, I was very disturbed by this in the Telegraph report:

I'm particularly bothered by the fact that "police could find no evidence" of Steve's calls (but the defence had no problems finding it) and then that "reluctantly, the prosecution accepted that a nosebleed had taken place". Reluctantly???

The baby died 10 days later - from a lung problem, apparently.

Is this a case of "guilty, guilty, guilty!" or what?

Anais, nobody is ever 'declared' innocent - there's no such verdict in law. You are 'presumed' innocent - so the quashing of the conviction is a declaration of innocence. The evidence didn't stand up because there wasn't any! I'm frankly a bit confused. What evidence would you need to 'prove' her innocence apart from her child having meningitis and no evidence of anything else?
And SofiaAmes, I agree with you. I remember years ago, seeing a very small girl (about seven or eight) holding a baby sibling alone in a tube tunnel, begging. Very filthy. I found this very upsetting and sat with her and asked her some questions. She told me she lived on a council caravan site in Camden (gave the address) and said her mother told her to go begging while she was in bed, drinking. The baby was give whatever milk or food the child could get. I was particularly worried about the baby who seemed terribly, unnaturally sleepy. I phoned Camden social services to give the girls name and circumstances, only to be told I was obviously racist, and didn't understand 'these people's traditions'. I was speechless. If the child's parents were solicitors you can bet your life they would have been round there in five seconds flat.

Aloha, that was my point. No verdict is absolute - by which I mean that a verdict is not necessarily an accurate represtentation of what actually happened. That is why miscarriages of justice happen.

I'm not saying she's guilty - I admit I haven;t read any of the links posted and don't claim to have followed the story or know much about it. I was just saying that there's always that 'what if?'

aloha I am disgusted but not surprised about that story of the children begging.

Does anyone know detail's of Sally Clark's first appeal and why it failed?

Jasper - there's a report on the first appeal here .

One thing that's really struck me about this is how fantastic her husband has been - after all he has also lost two babies, has had to fight for his surviving child to be taken out of care and has had to bring him up alone. He sold his home to pay for legal fees and quit his job so he could move closer to where she was in prison. I wonder how many of us think that our partners would have done the same in the circumstances?

alahoa, re sally clarks drinking: I'm not talking about a little social drinking while pregnant, this is what the telegraph reporting during her trial:
Colleagues noticed her shock at finding herself pregnant and discovered to their dismay that she was turning increasingly to drink. Sometimes, Clark was drunk at work. Once, when a combination of drink and depression rendered her incapable of completing a training course at Warwick University, her husband had to take her home.

Addleshaw, Booth issued a final written warning even as she awaited Christopher's birth. Referred to a consultant psychologist, Clark admitted to bouts of binge drinking and was given psychotherapy for loneliness, depression and difficulties in dealing with her emotions

Carriemac, that's interesting to find out.

IMO, this may have been a cry for help. If no-one could pick up that she was that unhappy during pregnancy, why would she be any happier after the birth (assuming that counselling stopped after the birth)?

I feel that IF she did cause harm to those babies,it could have been due to post natal psychosis or something similar.

However, she has been freed now and therefore she is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

Having lost a son to meningitis myself, I expect that if and when I have another child I am going to extremely paranoid that something similar might happen again, and if it did that people would instantly assume it was something to do with me. You can't help but wonder if people question if it is something to do with you or not, even with one child's dying. If only there WAS a guarantee that it wouldn't happen again.

It would be interesting to know if Sally Clarke's psychotherapy was continued after the birth of christopher. If not, why not? it seemed she needed support. Don't believe she harmed her sons even if she was depressed - too much evidence that they died of natural causes.

Bobbins, for every one person you think is questioning you second time round, there will hundreds who are right behind you and wish you well.

As I said many women on mumsnet admit to drinking too much and to depression, we don't assume they are murderers. In any case, I would love to know how Sally Clark's drinking (evidence of which wasn't even admitted in court as the judge ruled it could have nothing to do with the case) could have caused her son to be massively infected with meningitis, which was in his bloodstream and spinal cord. What exactly is the link here?

Sobernow, I remember reading (can't remember where!) that part of the "problem" was that Clark refused to admit that she had killed her child. If she had confessed to infanticide, chances are she might never have gone to prison, but would have received counselling and treatment.

...and you're a witch if you float and innocent if you drown?...

florenceuk, you are exactly right, if you will admit your 'guilt' you are in a much better position!!! Then they can 'help' you!

I remember thinking if she was guilty why just the latter two children when she had an older child (didn't she?)... at the time it seemed from this alone that she couldn't have done it but maybe that's too simple. Anyway, if she is innocent I feel so deeply sorry for what they have all gone through and will continue to go through and thank heavens she married someone with the conviction and strength to do all he could to get bring her case forward again.

Wow - i hadn't heard this on the news but it is very good news IMO. Nobody should be convicted solely on the basis of statistics and circumstantial evidence.

As for the drinking - it's ridiculous to say that it's relevant. Drinking heavily while pregnant may be irresponsible (though understandable since she was suffering from depression), but it does not make the poor woman a child-killer.

mam, the two that died were her first 2 - the one she has now was born after them (but before she went to prison.)

In any case, an intelligent woman who "doesn't want her figure ruined" etc etc by babies knows how to not have them for heaven's sake - she wouldn't have them and then kill them - it's so ludicrous it makes you wonder seriously about the intelligence of whoever decided they had a case against her. (Not to mention the moral integrity of the medical men who testified against her.)